Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[OneEye]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

(If I take your meaning correctly:)

This is, indeed, a very good point - and one which must be factored into any such discussion: One is obliged to act morally regardless whether the object of the action is a moral agent or not. I am not suggesting that one may treat an amoral object in immoral ways.

The question comes down to defining moral actions, specifically (in this case) with regard to human relations with other creatures.

However, the nature of the other ("object") creature does, indeed, impact this equation. For instance, a human is morally at liberty to act toward the dysentery amoeba or the tapeworm in ways which we might consider immoral when directed at, say, another human. And we all agree that humans may act toward nonsentient lives (e.g., plants) in ways which would be wrong when applied to humans. So, it is apparent that the nature of the object creature has a great impact on what we define as moral behavior when humans relate with non-human creatures.

The real struggle will come when we try to determine whose moral rules to apply in our interspecies relations - and why. It is well-observed that many animals eat other animals, and most of us agree that this is "their business". So in the broadest sense, nature offers us no direct guidance as to whether one animal eating another is moral or not - and the more one blurs the line between humanity and other animals, the less clear it becomes as to why man should abstain from an altogether natural practice.

One can say, (as you imply,) "Man should not treat animals according to any value system other than the human value system" - but problems arise when one considers this view (it seems somewhat arbitrary and "speciesist"), and even if we accept this statement uncritically, it still remains to be seen what is the "human value system" when it comes to human treatment of animals. It is apparent that humans have eaten animals for time immemorial. Why the human value system which prohibits the killing and eating of members of other species is to be preferred over the human value system which embraces an omnivorous or carnivorous diet remains to be seen.

So yes, this is an excellent clarifier. But unfortunately, it does not answer the question - nor does it take us as far down the road to answering it as it might first seem to.

 

[OneEye]

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Never in my wildest dreams ...

just as long you and i have reached a mutual understanding about certain things, I'm happy to move on ;)

the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

this is a silly notion sometimes held by both anti-veg and anti-AR folk. the 'healthier than thou' veggies are by no means necessarily 'holier than thou' - they may wear leather and fur, may advocate animal research and circuses, and may detest AR as much as anyone. they are usually pretty right on about the benefits of veg though because they often research it quite extensively. interestingly enough, it should not be assumed that all AR activists are veg either, cause they ain't!

i think it's important to recognize that there are a lot of different people out there with different degrees of tolerances doing different things.

it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

it doesn't disarm the AR position at all - you are assuming that humans are the only ones capable of niceness on the planet. you also assume that eating meat is human's natural and traditional diet.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

Not really. Now we have a problem the definition of natural rights... By natural rights, I'm simply referring to the right to happiness, the right to be free of pain, the right to survive... I'd never call the right to eat meat a natural right... for humans or animals. And neither would any animals rights rep...

"Humans can survive without meat therefore, they don't have the right to eat meat."

"Some animals can't survive without meat, therefore they have the right to eat meat."

The above two statements would be more in line with the animal rights position.

Did you see Dissident Dan's post? Natural rights are the most basic of rights and stem from foundations of ethics... ie:to be free of pain, to be happy etc...

 

[Bin Qasim]

People who want to be vegans are fine with me. I don't bother them, and I expect them not to bother me.

same thing... I won't bother them too... btw I am non veg

 

[Be Happy!]

I realize I've been absent for a day and have a lot to respond to, but for now I have only one thing:

Sangeeta, the argument that an cougar can't understand the morality of eating a deer, so its not wrong to do so has a pretty serious flaw: it has no basis in philosophy whatsoever. In fact, it goes directly against the existning philosophy of rights.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

If a pig killed a human, do we put the pig on trial? No! They may be capable of moral behavior to a certain degree, but certainly are not capable of thinking out morality in the same way as we do. (at least not as far as we know!)

A famous judge once said, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Just because I can do something immoral to you, doesn’t mean that it negates your rights.
I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions. This is a sound philosophical argument.

If the purpose of this discussion is to use the -it’s ok for an non-human animal to eat meat, therefore it is ok for a human animal to eat meat rationale, then I think it is a completely illogical parallel to make when you bring real life situations into the discussion. As I wrote before…a non-human animal in the wild eats meat for need, and there is no way to compare a wild lion’s eating habits to that of a human living in an apartment driving to go buy a carcass nicely wrapped in cellophane at the local grocery store.

So in this situation for example, non-human animals can’t be held morally accountable based on what I stated in the earlier post, but also due to their situation. The human’s situation is very very different, and if we are to try and draw philosophical parallels between the 2 scenarios in order to justify eating meat in general, then I think it is a very weak attempt.

So getting to your point now…

Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.

**If a decision reduces overall suffering it is a moral decision… Again the label “moral” is ascribed for moral agents i.e. humans, but not non-human animals. If you pick up the animals rights “bible” Animal Liberation by Peter Singer (the foremost utilitarian philosopher), you will never see him calling a non-human animal’s actions moral or immoral because a) moral judgments can only be ascribed to moral agents and b) it is irrelevant to the ethical decisions made by humans.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world.

From the deer’s perspective of course she’d rather not be killed. She has a family, desire to live etc. But practically speaking all we can do when defining morality is to base it on the species we know best- ourselves. It does us no good to around condemning lions, it’s much more productive to look at our actions as it is much more relevant to us.

I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument.

I think the point of ethics is not just to muse about things of interest, but they also serve to guide us into making decisions as to what we are to do and how we are to live in our lives. To reiterate, the most important thing we can do is to look at what we can do with our lives to reduce suffering in this world. This is what the prophets and saints throughout history have echoed for eons. We must change the world for the better with our lives, with our actions…Vegetarianism not only reduces suffering, it helps makes the planet a cleaner place for future generations and it helps humanity to be healthier. No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.


Sangeeta

 

[shrumeo]

well if your dog's diet is only meat-based then obviously there are things other than meat in it. hence, he really can't be allergic to these other things as you are trying to claim.

He can't have corn or wheat. These things make his skin flare up. He's allergic to them. He can have other grains like rice in his food, but he can't have wheat or corn.

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.
http://www.petsmart.com/global/prod...older_id=2534374302032929&bmUID=1102914506869
But, it's got vitamin supplements in it. I was looking at it the last time I was at Petsmart. It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source). There are sure to be a few more vitamins that must be manufactured or gotten from animal sources.

what a strange indicator of health! if you put some kids in front of an apple and candy, they may choose the candy first. i presume you weren't seriously expecting an answer to the question you asked though.

Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?

it is evident that you have not looked and refuse to look at the realities here. dogs do extremely well on veg diets and their coat and teeth flourish.

Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.


I don't know if anyone on this board has seen these:
http://www.themeatrix.com/
http://www.eatwellguide.org/
http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm
http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/

 

[shrumeo]

I never liked Aristotle.

I would compare him to Sigmund Freud.

And here is a website I came across, thought I would share.

http://ooze.com/pweeta/
http://ooze.com/pweeta/meat_movie.html (quicktime)

 

[physicsisphirst]

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.

ya we tried the nature's recipe initially, but our dogs liked the natural life and the evolution more.

It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source).

some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).

Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?

well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).

Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.

well I'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/

well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety

in friendship,
prad

 

[JPD]

I thought I should ramble for a bit - I hope you don't mind.

I don't think that humans have 'rights'. There are, of course, many definitions of rights in this sense but the one I am looking at states that a right is 'a power, privilege, etc. that a person has or gets by law, nature, tradition, etc [the right of free speech]. The law often arrives too late, nature will provide if you are in the right environment at the right time, and as for tradition, well...it is probably best not to place too much reliance there.

As far as feeding the dog is concerned, try letting the dog decide. Place a couple of bowls in front of him or her - one meat and one vegetarian - and see what happens. A dog may eat until it vomits but this is no worse than the behaviour of aristocrats from past centuries tucking into n to the power x course feasts.

There may be no actual answer to whether humans should eat meat but does it really matter? Those individuals who do will continue to do so, those who don't will continue not to (until they tuck into a plate of beef 10 years down the line because they can't stand it any longer), and so we are all happy. Especially when I see a vegetarian with meat juices dribbling down his/her chin.

 

[OneEye]

As I was kneeling beside the Briggs engine in the equipment shed, a medium-sized black cat came out from somewhere in the dim rearward portions of the building. It mewed cheerfully, and with only a little hesitation, came up to me and let me pet it. I did this for a minute, the cat and me both enjoying ourselves, and then I went back to work. And so did the cat.

A half hour passed, but suddenly, while I was gapping the points, the cat reappeared. I didn't look at it immediately, but I could tell by its short, insistent mews that something was up. Once I had verified the point gap, I looked up in the cat's direction. Sure enough, he had a rodent (a mouse, probably, but maybe a vole) in his mouth. He was pretty excited about this, and when he saw that I was looking, he dropped the mouse on the floor and mewed at me, asking for approval.

"Good kitty," I said, as I toed the dead rodent with my right foot. I spent only a second at this (in fact, I do not enjoy looking at dead mice), then went back to work. The cat did the expected: He brought the mouse over to me, hunkered down by the wire roller frame, and quickly gorged the mouse down. He left nary a whisker.

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
Corollary: Did I?

This may seem to be a pointless tangent, but it actually is crucial information. If you answer my questions, please also identify whether you are an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a meat eater, or anti-animal rights.

 

[physicsisphirst]

suffering no matter where or how, is bad?but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.
...
the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc.
...
I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat?
...
No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.

what an outstanding post, sangeeta!
you have dealt with several issues here and very effectively too
i like how you replied to the question regarding 'right to life' - it's something that i will certainly think about further due to your answer.

in friendship,
prad

 

[JPD]

What this seems to be about if removal from blame. If you choose to not eat meat you have exercised your right (if such things exist) as an individual. Everyone will respect this by not forcing you to eat meat. By the same token, I eat meat and will continue to do so, regardless of half-baked moral arguments and the objectives of others to spread their rose-tinted spectacle vision of life on Earth to everyone else. I don't even care if I should or not - I enjoy the texture and flavour. If a vegetarian or vegan doesn't like the fact that I eat meat, too bad. I don't force you to eat meat, you can't force or persuade me to give it up. This argument has gone round in circles for a whole year with the same base issues and small embelishments from time to time which have little impact.

 

[russ_watters]

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

...I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions.

But that's exactly the point: a very small child is incapable of understanding the morality of his/her actions, but that does not make those actions moral. The capacity to understand the actions affects the punishment or response to the immoral act, but does not effect the morality of the act itself. And you can be sure that one way or another, someone will try to correct the immoral behavior of the child. Similarly, if a cougar kills a person, you can bet someone will "correct" (kill) it. And if its immoral for a person to kill an animal, it also must be immoral for an animal to kill an animal.

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals?

Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.

I'm very happy you brought that up - that was my next point: I probably cause the deaths of 10-20 animals (vertibrates) a year due to my eating habits. A bald eagle kills hundreds of fish a year. Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish. Its win-win: I'd still get to eat meat (only preditors) and I'd save the lives of those hundreds of fish.

The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world.

Give me a rifle and some ammo and I will protect those deer from those lions. Sound good?

edit: regarding enforcement, no, the ability to enforce a right does not affect whether that right exists. Rights are a philosophical concept and exist independently of the practical problem of protecting them. In fact, if the inability to protect rights meant that those rights didn't exist, I could use that as a defense for any crime! "Your honor, the fact that I killed the victim means that he never had the right to live in the first place."

I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument.

My point here is that it makes just as little sense to apply animal morality to humans as human morality to animals. Animal rights activists want it both ways (or halfway?). In fact, I have argued that morality is a concept that doesn't even apply to animals at all: it was created by humans for humans to govern how to treat humans.

 

[learningphysics]

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals?

Yes, when possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, when possible.

Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

 

[theriddler876]

<rant hmnnn see as humans we tend to value some things over others, thus making everything not equal, for example, you shoot a fish, no one cares, you shoot a deer, some people care, you shoot a dog, youre a monster. this is why the atomic bomb was dropped in japan, see traditionally western culture has reguarded eastern culture inferior. the president would have thought about it for a lot longer dropping the bomb in a german city, anywhoo what some insane animal rights activists want do do is assign equal value to every animal, which isn't possible, because by this token all predators when hunting for survival would commit immoral acts, so we should kill off all the predators and live off plants. it's this kind of mentality that has the world f' ed up why, becuase we're messing with nature, you know that whole circle of life, it's in the lion king if there are any animal rights activists on here, there is a balance and this is how nature worked itself out. if it weren't for predators we'd be overrun by mice and bunnies, and then they would eat all the vegetation and we would all die why because "oh no we can't eat bunnies" so we need predators, and guess what, we are predators... anywhoo /rant>

 

[learningphysics]

Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

If the world has less suffering with the bald eagle extinct, then yes, I'll let you hunt them, but I'd make sure you hunted them so that they died painlessly. The method of killing them needs to be painless.

 

[OneEye]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. But a thought occurred to me: If the goal is to decrease the total suffering in the world, and we are allowed to kill in order to achieve this - then we need only wipe the Earth completely clean of all life forms. No suffering! (Schopenhauer, anyone?)

 

[russ_watters]

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone want to come?

 

[shrumeo]

some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).

Yeast isn't a plant, but that's ok. So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.

well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).

You mean when they become weak and anemic from B12 deficiency?
What about Iron? It's less readily absorbed when it comes from plants. Eh, but it's still absorbed isn't it?

And DERP, I was being sarcastic. Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.

well I'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):

Oh, I have no problem with it being supplemented, or that it contains meat.
I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/
well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety :

That's why I don't feed my dog Kibbles & Bits.
And I used to work at a vet and one of the doctors would use pentobarbital as a sedative and an anesthetic. If you double the dose, it kills them. This is an outdated practice, but really, if an animal eats trace amounts of it, I don't see any harmful effects. Over 10 years, who knows. I'm not trying to excuse it. The fact that it's in there is bad, and that's why I don't feed my dog cheap crap.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it. But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.
I like this page: http://www.weim.net/riley/raw2.htm
where it says:
Corn meal or other grain products are the first ingredients in many brands of dry dog food because "carbohydrates provide an economical source of energy in the diet of dogs," 3 not because it is necessarily good for them.
...
Dogs cannot digest some substances in grains as well as other plant materials.


I was trying to look up the ingredients in VegDog and it kinda tells you here:
http://vegepet.com/vdoginstr.pdf
I love this line:
Wolves and wild dogs eat uncooked food,
intact with vital enzymes.

Yeah, they eat uncooked MEAT.

I'm looking at these recipes too, and I can tell my dog would not eat most of this. He turns his nose up at most biscuits and most of this stuff is going to come out buscuit-like. My dog would just not eat oats, lentils, or garbonzos, and he certainly wouldn't eat shredded carrots, as the guide suggests you add to the food. Honestly when he doesn't like a food, he starves himself rather than eat the food. But, he;s more than happy to share some of my turkey sandwich (sans bread, which he spits out).

 

[learningphysics]

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone want to come?

A bizarre reaction! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no?

 

[russ_watters]

A bizarre reaction! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no?

Bald eagles are (were?) endangered. The majority position is that while its ok to eat for food, it isn't ok to wipe a species off the face of the earth.

 

[shrumeo]

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?

The cat did A thing. A thing that it does instinctually. Is it right or wrong?
Well, the cat is no longer hungry, so it was right for the cat.

Corollary: Did I?

Since you didn't interfere with the cat having his meal then good for you.
What were you supposed to do? Take the mouse away and do CPR, then go make the cat a veggie burger? That's being inhumane to the cat, who would likely starve rather than eat vegetables.

 

[learningphysics]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. But a thought occurred to me: If the goal is to decrease the total suffering in the world, and we are allowed to kill in order to achieve this - then we need only wipe the Earth completely clean of all life forms. No suffering! (Schopenhauer, anyone?)

A couple of things to consider here... the suffering involved in eliminating of all life... and existence after biological death... reincarnation etc... It is not certain that life can be eliminated.

So if the goal is to reduce overall suffering long-term... then perhaps killing off all life on Earth won't do it... The Eastern religions believe in reincarnation and have the goal of preventing reincarntion and obtain a "nirvana" state.

If one accepts that the life in this world is all there is and all life can be eliminated with little suffering, then yes, it seems like a logical conclusion. May sound ridiculous... I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

 

[russ_watters]

...and this is why the "right to life" is not based on the absence of suffering.

 

[DaveC426913]

"But I can't see the diference between eating a steak and killing a shark."

Farm animals are kept in check artificially, and so their numbers will not directly impact the ecology.

I will however point out a major difference between eating shark and eating, say, cod.

Cod are prey animals. Their survival method is to live and breed by the millions. Harvesting cod has a relatively small effect on their population.

Sharks are predators. Like most predators, they tend to be outnumbered by their prey hundreds or thousands to one. And like most predators, they also breed relatively rarely, a few young a year.

Killing a single shark has an effect on the ecology hundreds or thousands of times larger than killing an equivalent weight in cod. It does not take very many sharks to be removed from the ecosystem before their numbers drop too low to be able to propogate their species.

Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

As I was kneeling beside the Briggs engine in the equipment shed, a medium-sized black cat came out from somewhere in the dim rearward portions of the building. It mewed cheerfully, and with only a little hesitation, came up to me and let me pet it. I did this for a minute, the cat and me both enjoying ourselves, and then I went back to work. And so did the cat.

A half hour passed, but suddenly, while I was gapping the points, the cat reappeared. I didn't look at it immediately, but I could tell by its short, insistent mews that something was up. Once I had verified the point gap, I looked up in the cat's direction. Sure enough, he had a rodent (a mouse, probably, but maybe a vole) in his mouth. He was pretty excited about this, and when he saw that I was looking, he dropped the mouse on the floor and mewed at me, asking for approval.

"Good kitty," I said, as I toed the dead rodent with my right foot. I spent only a second at this (in fact, I do not enjoy looking at dead mice), then went back to work. The cat did the expected: He brought the mouse over to me, hunkered down by the wire roller frame, and quickly gorged the mouse down. He left nary a whisker.

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
Corollary: Did I?

This may seem to be a pointless tangent, but it actually is crucial information. If you answer my questions, please also identify whether you are an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a meat eater, or anti-animal rights.

I'm a vegetarian who believes animal rights issues have different answers depending on the situation. Most animals are not equal to humans, but some could be equal or superior. My dog certainlly does more for society than the average serial killer. My dog greets my family at the door and puts a smile on someone's face daily.

The cat was acting from a cat's perspective. If you look at morals as products of evolution you can argue that the cat can't logically comphrend what it did wrong. My knowledge of cat psychology is non-existant, so the question is a bit difficult to answer.

What I'm discerning as the theme of your question is "Should humans go out of their way to save animals?" Well, what will these animals do for society if we save them? Certainly the benefit of meat-eating are insignificant compared to what those animals could provide living - joy for environmentalists, environmental enrichment.

In the instance of a human we should go out of our way because we can ask, "Would the human have the potential to realize what we did and repay us?" The answer is yes. An animal might be saved from a fire and claw the face of the hero who saved it. Animals are beautiful in their own way and people enjoy them, they do not need to be killed. Despite this, animals deserve some fundamental rights; it is only when they interfere with humanity that we need to do something.

Concerning the cat killing the mouse: it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve. I believe animals would prefer to be left alone in the wild with predators rather than to be fully controlled by society for their own protection. The cat did something wrong logically, but not from its perspective.

Did you do the right thing? Logically I would say you didn't. Realistically because of the cats intellectual weakness the issue probably has little significance. Since the cat is integrated into society, if it can be trained not to kill, that is what should be done.

My thoughts on these issues change, and the topic is complex; however, I stand by my vegetarianism. There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on...

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation.

 

[JPD]

Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.
Please show evidence for your assertion that eating meat is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles. There is something else that winds me up about vegetarians and vegans - state the evidence and let that stand on its own.
An 'alternative lifestyle' is meaningless - its like saying 'I'm on a diet'.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it:

Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

 

[russ_watters]

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation.

No, its actually very reasonable, well thought out opinion. But I have one criticism:

There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on...

That's your list, from the perspective of a vegitarian. Most are opinions, but I have some issues with some of the implied facts: First and foremost, while it is true that in practice vegitarians eat healthier than meat-eaters, the reson is that it takes more effort to eat healthy as a vegitarian - which in turn means that it is inherrently less healthy to be a vegitarian. Meat isn't iced cream: while if you simply stop eating iced cream and make no other changes to your diet, you will see only positive effects on your health, if you simply stop eating meat and make no other changes to your diet, you will see both positive and negative effects on your health. If, instead of turning vegitarian, that effort were put into eating healthier meat, those positives can still be realized.

Regarding "contributions" - as already discussed, the contribution factor is negligible with most meats.

Regarding gluttony: gluttony does not factor into this discussion. Most gluttons I know eat more potato chips and candy than meat. Ie, the meat isn't driving the gluttony.

And finally:

Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.

As I said in a political argument last night: if people didn't think their opinions were morally superior to the other side, they'd hold the other side's opinion. This is a useless tautology and should not have been included on Dooga's list.

I eat meat for three basic reasons:
1. I like the taste
2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.
3. I work out and need (want) extra protein in my diet - and protein shakes are disgusting.

 

[OneEye]

I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

Oh, my!

For those who haven't studied up on their Victorian German philosophers: Schopenhauer was a confirmed pessismist who came to the conclusion that it was mankind's moral duty to refuse to breed and thus extinguish the human species. Some modern animal rights activists call man a "virus" on the environment (implying that the world would be better off if the human race was extincted). Schopenhauer, by way of contrast, resented the "cruel trick" which nature played in pairing a handsome young man and vivacious young woman together, only to see their beauty wane after the goal of procreation was effected. Schopenhauer's solution to this situation was to refuse to participate - and he believed that all mankind should go along with this plan as a protest against the unfairness of the universe. (Personally, I think that he was just upset because he couldn't get a date on a Friday night - but what do I know?)

Basically, we have reached the Theravadic solution: Existence=suffering, so suffering must be ended through nonexistence. Some in the discussion may find this "fundamentalist Buddhist" idea appealing. But most of us, I think, are not pessimists.

(As a side note: One wonders how Buddhism and other reincarnationist scemes deal with the possibility of universal extinction of all species? Obviously, the law of karma would be frustrated, and the universalist tendencies of Buddhism would be upset. Hmmmm.)

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution.

Dr. Filostrato, are you out there?

 

[physicsisphirst]

So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.

LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).

I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)

there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it.

well they aren't the only ones who say so. it seems to be a reality that makes usual additives look tame.

But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Dooga
The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.

but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve.

that is a fascinating perspective and in many ways, it makes some very real sense. (some nice stuff in that post too!)

it also explains wars perhaps to some extent - is it possible that humans are doomed to fight with each other (and the rest of the planet) until they evolve further? (remember that's what roddenberry's vulcans did - and historically, it seems that humans may be on that same path).

peaceful co-existence with minimal infliction of harm to other beings may be what evolution is about. as shangri-la's father perrault said to conway in lost horizon: "when the strong have devoured each other, the meek shall truly inherit the earth."

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution.

Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.

 

[OneEye]

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

I guess the next logical question (for your line of thought as well as for mine is,) What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat? More exactly, the question is not whether you should choose your dog's diet (which I do for mine, of course), but why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?

You seem quite presumptuous in foisting your moral ideas off on your dog. You have already taken over the management of its life, and now you are managing its life in a fashion which is completely un-doggy. You are not allowing the dog to eat according to its scruples. Rather, you are forcing your morality on the dog. Are you so superior to your dog that you have some sort of natural right to do this?

Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

 

[OneEye]

Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.

Well, there have been pessimistic philosophers over the years. One thinks, of course, of Schopenhauer, and then of the Existentialists, and then of the Dadaists. And the current state of the animal rights movement either condemns mankind as a scourge on the Earth or subordinates human interests to those of all other species, thus demoting man to nature's lowest caste. So I wouldn't say that this pessimistic strain is altogether unknown in Western philosophy.

In fact, I would say that such pessimism is the ultimate bottoming out of any philosophy which begins with a naturalistic/humanistic position. But most people prefer not to dive down to the bottom, but rather to merely skim the surface, so long as self interest can be served.

 

[physicsisphirst]

What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat?
why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?
...
Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

 

[hitssquad]

why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste

Indeed.
http://www.google.com/search?q="dog+eating+poo"

 

[JPD]

but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.

 

[OneEye]

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.

now that's evolution in action!

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.

well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?

additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life - and possibly acquire better karma so in his next life he could be a pig? an elephant? an eagle? or whatever you'd like to conjure up, oneeye!

(i have to admit though that hitsquad's 'dog eating poo' revelations have been a real eyeopener! i am starting to feel as if i have been negligent in some way since my dogs can wander our rather large yard and goodness knows what they might find succulent - away from my astute observation. i should really have a father to dog talk with them just so they know that certain activities are not in their best interests in our natural world!)

if you really do want to know why i don't feed meat to my dog (there are 2 doggies, btw), reread my earlier posts or just ask me (and i'll tell you to reread my earlier posts) and you'll get a pretty good idea.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

...additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'?

Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...

 

[shrumeo]

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it: I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.

 

[shrumeo]

LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)

We were talking about humans and dogs. But if we are talking about dogs then I know my dog wouldn't eat yeast, or shellfish, or (can you believe it) blue green algea.

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).

Huh? Just because I feed my dog an artificial dog food doesn't mean that his instincts have been taken away. He still chases squirrels and chipmunks in the backyard all the time. I don't think his mom showed him what to do with them, so he just chases them. He never catches them anyway.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.

there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.

I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?
The only non-animal source that even remotely gives you the proper balance of amino acids is soy, and most of the time it comes with estrogen analogs that might not be so good for you.
Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
From http://www.dictionary.com/

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.

Ah! Here is a good page:
http://www.goodpet.com/library/recipes.html

Dogs and cats evolved eating a raw meat diet. That is a fact. Through marketing, the pet food companies have convinced us that the only way our pets can stay healthy is by feeding them the “balanced diet” that they themselves manufacture - mostly from cheap filler grains and very questionable protein sources.

Along with the following recipe ideas, both cats and dogs can (and should) be given raw bones (chicken or turkey necks, wings and backs). Bones must be given raw, cooked bones should NEVER be fed, since when cooked they become brittle and can splinter.

You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.

Heres more:

What other clues do we have that grains are not necessary for carnivores?
1) Dogs and cats do not have dietary requirements for complex carbohydrates.
2) Grains must be cooked or sprouted and thoroughly chewed to be digested Carnivores do not chew much at all.
3) The other nutrients in grains are readily available from other dietary ingredients. For example, B-vitamins are found in organ meats and trace minerals come from bones and vegetables. (Unfortunately, modern farming has striped many trace minerals from produce and supplementation is usually best.)

What are the negative effects? I believe that carnivores cannot maintain long-term production of the quantity of amylase enzyme necessary to properly digest and utilize the carbohydrates. In addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive than animal proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated and weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems may develop.

This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).

 

[shrumeo]

The myths of vegetarianism.

Just a couple of links:

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.

MYTH #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not.

Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.

There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).

http://www.reallyhealthy.com/articles/ap-stephenbyrnes.html

A Response to Stephen Byrnes’ article: "The Myths of Vegetarianism"

I know vegetarians who seem distinctly unhealthy: pale faced, weak and unable to concentrate. I also know meat-eaters that are equally unhealthy: red-faced, gasping for air and with high cholesterol. Stereotypes for sure! There are also both vegetarians and meat-eaters who are very healthy—like Byrnes himself who looks the picture of health! That said, statistically, vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters and there is, contrary to what Byrnes tells us, much supporting evidence for this.

There are way more people that are "meat eaters" than are vegetarians.
People who become vegetarians are statistically much more likely to care about exactly what they are eating
(that's how they became vegetarians).
Therefore, because these people took the time out of their day to think about what they eat, statistically, they will be healthier.
But, where is the study comparing diet-mindful vegetarians with diet-mindful "meat-eaters" (who are vegetarians that also eat some meat)?

Byrnes’ article is very useful to the vegetarian community because it reiterates the fact that just because a diet is vegetarian doesn’t automatically mean it healthy—an assumption that has seen many a healthy omnivore turn into an unhealthy vegetarian.

While this author keeps referring to the other's bias, aren't they both biased and doesn't it look like too many people have something to gain (financially) from winning or appearing to win this argument?

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

I agree with Byrnes on this one: it is essential for all vegans to include a B12 food supplement in their diets (these supplements are made from bacterial cultures and so can be taken by vegans). There is some evidence that certain foods like Klamath Blue Green Algae contain available (non-analogue) B12, and that this vitamin can be manufactured by intestinal flora and that it might be in the soil residues, but it is dangerous to rely on these sources for such an essential vitamin (although many people have and with fair results). The risks are too great not to supplement. Byrnes last statement that vegans a few decades ago would have died as they did not have supplements or fortified foods is not true as veganism is not a modern invention!

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

 

[OneEye]

I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.

But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.

 

[OneEye]

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

Two thoughts: First, as I have said before, the "healthy vegetarianism" apologetic is usually just a Trojan horse for the "ethical vegetarian" view. I don't mind people taking the ethical vegetarian view, but I deplore those who disguise their ethical vegetarian views with the "vegetarianism is healthier" smokescreen.

Second, I live in a ranching area, and I have helped some of the cattlemen and hog farmers out here do some of their work (though I am not a rancher or farmer myself). Honestly, I am not seeing the sort of maltreatment which is alleged by vegans. When I lived in the city, I had no facts at hand to answer the animal rights people. But now, I have access to a great deal more information. Mind you, I am not saying that any of the ranchers out here give much thought to treating these animals in a humanitarian fashion. But this is because they see the animals as being creatures whose purpose is to serve as a food supply - and not as fellow humans!

I agree that animals ought not to be subjected to cruelty. But one of the problems with this sort of discussion is that, while you and I may say, "Food animals must be killed as humanely as possible," an animal rights activist will usually say, "Killing an animal is inherently inhumane." When PETA complains about "cruel treatment" at a kosher slaughterhouse (when kosher slaughtering is one of the quickest and most painless means), they are actually complaining that animals are being killed for food - not what you and I might think when they charge that the animals are being treated cruelly.

To my mind, this sort of deception on the part of animal rights activists does great damage to their cause.